Facts:

This case involves a peculiar instance of eminent domain where two parcels of land owned by petitioners Jose Ma. Ansaldo and Maria Angela Ansaldo were taken by the government without formal expropriation proceedings for a road widening in 1947. The properties, collectively measuring 1,041 square meters and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4884 from the Registry of Deeds for Rizal, were confiscated by the Department of Public Works Transportation and Communication and incorporated into what is now Ramon Magsaysay Avenue in San Juan, Metro Manila. Notably, the Ansaldos did not contest the government's action at the time of taking. It was only twenty-six years later, on January 22, 1973, that they sought compensation for their expropriated land. Their claim was assessed by the Secretary of Justice, who advised that they should be compensated based on the current and fair market value according to Presidential Decree No. 76. The Bureau of Public Highways conducted a

...

Facts:

Background of the Expropriation

• Two privately owned lots, aggregating 1,041 square meters, were taken by the Government.
• The lots, titled in the names of Jose Ma. Ansaldo and Maria Angela Ansaldo, are located in what was formerly Sta. Mesa Street and is now Ramon Magsaysay Avenue, San Juan, Metro Manila.
• The taking occurred in 1947 by the Department of Public Works, Transportation and Communication, with the lands subsequently converted for public use as part of a road-widening project.
• The owners did not initially protest or oppose the taking, implying a form of tacit consent.

Chronology of Events Leading to the Claim

• After more than two decades without raising an issue, the Ansaldos initiated a compensation claim on January 22, 1973.
• Their claim was referred to the Secretary of Justice, who rendered an opinion on February 22, 1973, advising that just compensation must be paid in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 76.
• Under PD 76, compensation was to be based on the current and fair market value, either as declared by the owner or as determined by the assessor, whichever was lower.

Role of Government Agencies in Valuation and Recommendation

• The Commissioner of Public Highways requested a re-determination of the market value from the Provincial Assessor of Rizal, following the guidelines of PD 76.
• The Auditor of the Bureau of Public Highways forwarded the Ansaldos’ claim to the Auditor General, recommending that compensation be based on the “current and fair market value” instead of the value at the time of taking.
• The Commission on Audit, through rulings issued on September 26, 1973, September 8, 1978, and January 25, 1979 (upon a motion for reconsideration), maintained that the just compensation should be fixed as of the time of taking in 1947.

Legal and Constitutional Context

• The case occurred at a time when provisions of PD 76 (as well as related decrees) were still operative, although these provisions were later declared unconstitutional (e.g., in Export Processing Zone Authority v. Dulay).
• The expropriation process traditionally requires either an eminent domain action or an agreement with the owners; in this instance, neither was initially pursued.
• The case is unique because the property was taken decades prior to the expropriation suit, raising issues regarding the appropriate time for fixing the compensation.

Nature of the Taking and Its Consequences

• Despite the absence of a formal expropriation proceeding at the time of taking, the Government’s actions effectively deprived the Ansaldos of beneficial use of their property.
• Subsequent legal proceedings were directed towards determining the just compensation due, with emphasis on the principle that an owner should only be compensated for the actual loss incurred at the moment of taking.
• The rulings and comments by the Court highlight that once possession is taken and the property diverted to public use, the owner suffers a practical deprivation of its ordinary use and value.

Issue:

Determination of the Appropriate Time for Valuation

• Whether just compensation for expropriated property should be fixed as of the time of taking (1947) or as of the time of the filing of the expropriation suit.
• The legal implications of fixing the value at two distinctly different moments and how each timing reflects on the owner’s actual loss.

Application of Constitutional Due Process in Expropriation

• Whether determining compensation at the time of suit filing meets the constitutional due process requirements, as opposed to the earlier established moment of taking.
• The interplay between established expropriation procedures (including the Rules of Court) and the practical circumstances in cases where possession is acquired long before legal proceedings are initiated.

Impact of the Government’s Inherent Power of Eminent Domain

• Whether the government’s act of taking, without the immediate exercise of eminent domain through a formal legal process, justifiably triggers the application of the “time of taking” standard for compensation.
• The broader implications for public policy and justice in ensuring that compensation reflects only the actual loss suffered.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)